Robot-assisted radical cystectomy vs open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Even though there isn't enough clinical evidence to demonstrate that robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is preferable to open radical cystectomy (ORC), RARC has become a widely used alternative. We performed the present study of RARC vs ORC with a focus on oncologic, pathological, perioperative, and complication-related outcomes and health-related quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We conducted a literature review up to August 2022. The search included PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane controlled trials register databases. We classified the studies according to version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The data was assessed by Review Manager 5.4.0. RESULTS: 8 RCTs comparing 1024 patients were analyzed in our study. RARC was related to lower estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD): -328.2; 95% CI -463.49--192.92; p < 0.00001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR: 0.45; 95% CI 0.32 - 0.65; p < 0.0001) but longer operation time (WMD: 84.21; 95% CI 46.20 -121.72; p < 0.0001). And we found no significant difference in terms of positive surgical margins (P = 0.97), lymph node yield (P = 0.30) and length of stay (P = 0.99). Moreover, no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of survival outcomes, pathological outcomes, postoperative complication outcomes and health-related QOL. CONCLUSION: Based on the present evidence, we demonstrated that RARC and ORC have similar cancer control results. RARC is related to less blood loss and lower transfusion rate. We found no difference in postoperative complications and health-related QOL between robotic and open approaches. RARC procedures could be used as an alternate treatment for bladder cancer patients. Additional RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to validate this observation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety comparing greenlight laser vaporization with transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate volume less than 80 ml.

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photo selective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) with the GreenLight Laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of small-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). As of July 2022, relevant literature in online databases such as Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase was searched, including studies published on or before that date, and there were 9 studies in total, including 5 RCTs and 4 non-RCTs. In total 1525 patients were included to compare the efficacy of PVP and TURP in treating BPH. The Cochrane Collaboration criteria were used to evaluate the risk of bias. The software was used for random effect meta-analysis with RevMan 5.3. Data extraction included: clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative parameters, complication rates, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), prostate specific antigen (PSA), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and quality of life (QoL). The pooled analysis showed that PVP was associated with reduced blood loss, blood transfusion, clot retention, catheterization time, definitive catheter removal, and hospital stay, but was associated with longer operative time and more severe dysuria (all p < 0.05). The results of this meta-analysis show that PVP as a technique for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with a volume of less than 80 cc has similar efficacy to standard TURP in IPSS, PSA, PVR, Qmax and QoL, and is an effective alternative. It outperformed TURP in terms of blood transfusion, catheterization time and hospital stay, while TURP is superior to PVP in terms of operation time.

The Efficacy and Safety of HoLEP for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia With Large Volume: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large volume. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until March 2022) were used to search related randomized controlled trials. A total of 11 studies including 1,258 patients were involved. HoLEP could significantly decrease the length of hospital stay and accelerate recovery. In subanalysis, HoLEP had better perioperative outcomes than bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (BPEP). The improvement in operative time and enucleation time was better in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) than HoLEP. In the follow-up period, the HoLEP decreased post-void residual urine (PVR) in short-term intervals and improved patients' maximum flow rate (Qmax) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in mid- and long-term intervals. In subanalysis, HoLEP presented significant improvements in Qmax, PSA, and quality of life (QoL) than B-TURP, and HoLEP could also improve Qmax than ThuLEP after 6 months of surgery. The HoLEP reduced the risk of postoperative bleeding compared with other surgeries in safety. In our study, we confirmed the advantages of HoLEP in treating BPH when the prostate size was larger than 80 mL, which indicated that HoLEP could be the best choice for treatment of large volume of prostate.